News

Obama vows to veto any bill that defunds Planned Parenthood

55 Comments

Story here from Life News. (H/T Gateway Pundit)

Excerpt:

President Barack Obama would veto the House-approved long-term spending bill for the federal government that contains the Pence Amendment, a measure that would de-fund the Planned Parenthood abortion business.

Because of that provision and other pro-life riders that stop abortion funding globally and in the District of Columbia, the Washington Times indicates “Obama has issued a veto threat on that bill, saying House Republicans’ cuts are unacceptable.”

“Senate Democrats said the non-spending provisions of the bill — such as restrictions on Planned Parenthood and on Obama administration rules and regulations — will also have to be struck,” the Times continues.

[…]Tony Perkins, the head of the Family Research Council, shed light on the situation, talking about the key pro-life provision in the House-approved budget bill that would stop taxpayer funding of abortions in the District of Columbia.

“Until this administration came to town, it was illegal to take money out of our pockets and use it to directly finance the killing of D.C.’s unborn children. That all flew out the window in the 2009 omnibus, when the Democratic leadership insisted on giving District abortion doctors a direct pipeline to government dollars,” he explained.”Thanks to the last Congress, the capital of the free world is also the capital of free abortions. This is incredibly significant now, as House and Senate leaders wrestle over the new budget.”

“As part of the continuing resolution that House members passed last week, the District would go back to the way things were before President Obama, when there was a freeze on D.C. taxpayer-funded abortion. That’s all up in the air, now that both parties can’t seem to come to an agreement on budget cuts,” he said. “The Left’s version of a “clean bill” is still awash in abortion funding.”

The Blog Prof reviews some of Obama’s pro-abortion actions.

Excerpt:

Robert McCain notes that this is the same Planned Parenthood that wants to teach Girl Scouts about sex.

Democrats are not really pro-choice – they are pro-abortion. When you pay for people to have abortions, you are pro-abortion.

Related posts on Planned Parenthood

Related posts on Republican bills

55 thoughts on “Obama vows to veto any bill that defunds Planned Parenthood”

  1. The prez, considered by some to the be a most brilliant man, despite the overwhelming lack of evidence in support of that contention, hasn’t the wisdom to understand when life begins, the courage to stand up for it, or the intelligence to take the time to truly learn about it. He is a coward. He is an idiot. He is the worst president ever. Jimmah Carter could not be more pleased with him.

    Like

    Reply

  2. These “progressives” are in such a snit to get funding for abortion that they will force all taxpayers to provide it, regardless of what the Constitution doesn’t allow. But how many will take so much of a penny out of their own pockets to pay for all this death and destruction? NONE. A good percentage of them don’t even pay their own taxes!!!!!

    Like

    Reply

    1. Meanwhile, Glenn, you have lots of Christians voting for their neighbors to pay for their health care, not realizing that when the state takes over health care, it will cover abortions. Christians do this because they do not see the connection between capitalism and limited government and liberty. They think “let’s make the government equalize life outcomes by redistributing wealth” and “let’s punish the rich for providing us with jobs”. The theft and envy is sin and it should be called out as sinful.

      Like

      Reply

  3. I agree with you 100% . I wrote by my senators and my congressman and asked all three to demonstrate from the Constitution where it allowed Obamacare, let alone the funding of abortions. From all three I got a form letter saying how important Obamacare is!!!

    Too many Christians have no idea what it means to live a Christian worldview which includes even obeying the laws of the land – i.e., the Constitution, which DO NOT authorize entitlements!! Too many Christians vote for personal gain.

    No Christian should ever vote for a Democrat. Doing so gives support to their ungodly platform of sexual immorality, abortion, stealing from the public, etc.

    Like

    Reply

  6. This goes to show just how much Obama loves abortion. Abortion is important to him. He is actively fighting for MORE abortion. And it’s important to him that Americans pay for it with their taxes whether they like it or not.

    Citizens of America, please vote this man OUT.

    Like

    Reply

        1. Thank you, Glenn! This is a factor that all supposed pro-choice people seem to forget…conveniently. Exactly how safe is that saline solution that burns the baby’s flesh or the knives that cut it from the safety of the mother’s womb. No, definitely never safe for the child!

          Like

          Reply

      2. The law of our land? How about the law of our God? Sadly, it would appear that you are right that he does “not fight for abortion.” Bullies really don’t have to fight after a while, do they? And bullies always oppress those smaller and weaker than themselves. Since when is it constitutional to make a “law of the land” that forces American citizens to fund another’s choice to murder an unborn child??

        Like

        Reply

        1. Cherry, I and many anti-war Americans pay taxes to fund wars that kill hundreds of thousands of children and adults–living, breathing, human beings (As of February 2010, around $704 billion has been spent based on estimates of current expenditure rates,[1] which range from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) estimate of $2 billion per week to $12 billion a month, an estimate by economist Joseph Stiglitz)

          I don’t know what my portion of that is, but I don’t like it, not from a financial aspect and not from a moral aspect. Is it Constitutional that I’m forced to pay for it? You bet!

          Now let’s compare the taxes we all pay to fund wars to those that fund abortions: a total of 191 extreme cases involving rape, incest or medical necessity. 191. This comes out to something on the order of 2/10 of a penny per tax payer.

          Wow! Two-tenths of a penny. That must really make you lose sleep at night.

          And those rape victims, those incest victims, those women whose pregnancies are a threat to their lives and health and whose abortions are paid for by our tax dollars. Man, you must really feel they’re gaming the system–because these are the women whose abortions you’re protesting.

          Like

          Reply

          1. I am anti-war, as I would hope everyone would be. The problem is that we have congressmen and presidents violating the Constitution with the wars they are playing. Nevertheless, military funding is one of the Constitutional expenditures.

            Your numbers of abortions paid for by tax dollars is hysterical. Where did you find those? I don’t think that they are true. PP gets millions of dollars from out taxes, none of it Constitutionally. And they are the world’s largest providers of abortions. Are you trying to tell me that it cost millions of dollars for 191 abortions?

            So, if a woman/girl is raped, on top of that trauma she should live with the remembrance of murdering a child? So the child suffers because of a rapist’s crime? And why should a child die just because it was conceived by incest? And woman’s health? How often I have read of that including “mental health”. Your reasons – excuses – are all bogus justifications for murdering a child.

            Like

      3. Actually, McS, “safe abortion” is an oxymoron. Every successful abortion kills one human being.

        Obama is pushing for more embryonic stem cell research. That kills living human embryos. That’s abortion.

        Obama voted to keep legal the worst kind of inhumane late term abortion that makes even many “pro-choicers” wince: partial birth abortion.

        Wintery has listed Obama’s record on abortion in his post. It’s ugly.

        I also suggest reading this article from Robert P. George written when Obama was running for president:
        http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2008/10/133
        George shows very well how Obama really is pro-abortion.

        Instead of funding crisis pregancy centres that offer women life-affirming alternatives, Obama wants funding (from taxpayers who are not given the choice to opt out) for Planned Parenthood, who not only kill unborn children, but lie to the mothers about stages of foetal development, and help human traffickers and pimps selling the sexual services of underage girls.

        To call that safe is laughable.

        Like

        Reply

        1. How does one PP employee advising fictitious “human traffickers and pimps selling the sexual services of underage girls” equate to an entire organization doing so?

          Can you offer some support for this claim, Mary?

          Like

          Reply

          1. One PP employee???!?!?!?!? Where have you been? THis setup had been done several times at several PP facilities and it demonstrates that the problem is endemic to the organization.

            Like

  7. Just to make a point: Not all members of either party adhere to the party platform; if they don’t do so then they shouldn’t be members of that party.

    But the Demokratic Party, unlike the Republican party, has a platform calling for socialism, redistribution of the wealth (theft from workers to provide for the lazy), abortion, homosexual agenda, sexual immorality, destruction of marriage, etc.

    Like

    Reply

      1. Your point being? I’m talking about party platforms, not individuals. Besides, “pro-choice” is a misnomer. Everyone is pro-choice; it’s just that one must make moral choices, not immoral ones. And the choice whether to have a child was made at the time the person has sex – one must be willing to accept responsibility for one’s choices!

        Like

        Reply

        1. so you then support abortion in the event of rape since it wasn’t their choice?

          The republican party has supported corporate socialism – the bailout, the take overs from the “too-big-to-fail”, the billions we pump in to sectors like oil so the reds can prop up the muslims.

          The reds always hit on personal responsibility and accountability but think nothing of the entire corporate structure – split ownership to push control to a seperate group and hence all responsibility, relying on the tax payers to constantly bail them out (like we did the Savings and Loans in the 80’s and several times before). Our corporate overlords force us to subsidize many technologies that would fail if forced to compete in a true free market all the while the reds blast anyone that questions the corporate orthodoxy and dogma

          Like

          Reply

          1. The Republicans also have some bad ideas on their platform and I don’t like them either, but compared to the Democratic platform, the Republican platform is almost holy!

            Like

          2. By the way, even with rape, you don’t kill a child because of a rapist’s crime. And that is such a canard anyway – it is a rarity! The woman who is raped has a traumatic experience to remember the rest of her life, and when you add murder it gives her another traumatic experience to live with.

            Like

        2. My point is that you can’t generalize about morality simply from how someone votes.

          You also can’t generalize abortions: some are the result of carelessness, sure. Many are not. Some are medically necessary and some are ethically necessary (in the case of rape or incest or mental incapacity).

          And many conservative women have them, quietly, of course.

          Like

          Reply

          1. This is an illogical and bizarre post. Is abortion murder or is it like getting a root canal?

            If abortion is like getting a root canal than who cares if an abortion is medically necessary or not? On the other hand, if it is the murder of an unborn human being than there is no good reason to get an abortion.

            And rather than defend your point of view on the killing of unborn children, you have to insinuate that those who disagree with you are just a bunch of hypocrites.

            Like

          2. If someone votes demokrat, they are voting for a platform of unholy, ungodly morality, theft of personal property, etc.

            So if a girl is raped, let’s add to the trauma by adding murder to her problems?

            So does incest make the child guilty of a crime to be killed for?

            And who determines “mental incapacity” – and what does that have to do with the baby?

            Yes, there are conservative women who abort – so what? They are just as wrong for doing so.

            Like

  8. How can anyone be pro-abortion? What a reprehensible view to hold. To actually sanction the termination of life for an unborn child. I honestly can’t imagine a more monstrous concept.

    Society is measured in how it treats its weakest members. And we dispose of our weakest members (unborn children) at our convenience and for any reason. This nation is truly under a curse.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Well said. Any nation that sanctions the killing of its weakest members forfeits the right to call itself “civilized”.

      Like

      Reply

  9. wgbutler777 says, “How can anyone be pro-abortion?”

    Well, one thing is for certain…only people who have been born can advocate the murder of the unborn. It’s kind of like building your home and then demanding that a law be made against the harvesting of trees for homes.

    Like

    Reply

  11. Glenn, I don’t think women are traumatized by abortion, as much as you might like them to be. Of the many women I know who’ve had them, none described the experience as traumatizing. Most had them when they were young and then went on to have families later in their lives. One had a late term abortion due to fetal abnormality after she’d already had a child. She didn’t tell me more about it than that, but never mentioned anything about trauma. In fact, after the abortion, she went on to have another healthy child. It’s worth considering, therefore, that the way you’d like them to view the abortion is irrelevant. Until you are the one who is faced with carrying a child, you really can’t simply project your feelings into the situation.

    Like

    Reply

    2. I know several women, including my own sister, who have had abortions, and I have read testimonies by many more. All have said they are still bothered by that choice, that it has caused depression, guilt, etc. I have also read psychological studies about how many women don’t start thinking about it until much later in life and then they are bothered by it and depression is a big result.

      How about you? Using your last fallacious statement, until YOU are the one who killed a child you can’t project your feelings into the situation!

      Like

      Reply

      1. I had a brother/mentor relationship with a post-abortive woman who became a Christian. She was actually pretty good about trusting and changing but it took a lot of work. One day we talked for 9.25 hours on Sunday. A new record!

        Like

        Reply

        1. One of the women in the ladies’s Bible study group my wife leads had an abortion before she was married. Even with the kids she now has, she grieves the loss of the one she aborted; she had been convinced it was just blobs of tissue. She is 40 now and this still bothers her to a great degree.

          Like

          Reply

  13. There is fact-based research and reponse based research and the two are very different. What we’re talking about here response based. For example: 20 out of 20 people who ordered chicken soup at XYZ deli reported runny noses. You can’t then say “chicken soup at XYZ deli causes runny noses.” You also can’t say “People with runny noses order chicken soup.” Both may be true, but you have to conduct your research so that you can say with certainty what is cause, what is coincidence and what is effect. Ultimately, you’re probably looking to determine whether or not the guy who made the chicken soup had a cold that he passed on to his customers at the deli, or that the people who ordered the soup all had colds already and that’s why they ordered chicken soup.

    In the case of women who report trauma and have had abortion, you can’t claim that “women are traumatized by abortion” unless you can separate out other factors that may have caused the trauma that have nothing to do with abortion. Perhaps all the women in the abortion clinic, for example, are single and the trauma has to do with being pregnant and single, but not the actual surgical procedure, per se. The other part of this is knowing whether or not carrying a problem pregnancy to term would cause even more trauma. YOu can make many other analogies: getting a mastectomy is traumatizing. But not having a mastectomy would be more traumatizing because you could end up dead. Unless you look further down the road than what you’re asking the person (“Did your mastectomy cause you trauma”) you might infer that mastectomy is traumatic and therefore to be avoided.

    I’m not trying to be difficult here; but I work professionally with a lot of research and one cannot simply infer cause and effect just because two things happen within proximity to each other. It’s possible to devlop fact-based opinions from very good research, but it requires controlling a lot of variables.

    Like

    Reply

  14. The fact remains that abortion kills an unborn child regardless of how the woman feels about it. Viability of human life simply does not rely on how anyone “feels” or how many statistics are gathered on how everyone “feels.” If a man goes out and kills someone, his feelings about having done so do not change the fact that he has killed a human being.

    Like

    Reply

  15. McSpin, Not nosey. Just saying, you claim I can’t speak to a situation because I’ve never faced childbirth, and I just took the argument back at you: If you haven’t had an abortion, by your logic you can’t speak about it. Nevertheless, even if you have had one, the logic that says one must experience something to speak about it is fallacious. I haven’t experienced jumping off a cliff, but I can certainly speak to the fact that you will die from it!

    And if you have had one, then I sorrow for you.

    Like

    Reply

      1. A ‘nosy parker’, sometimes spelled ‘nosey parker’, is a person of an overly inquisitive or prying nature.

        I am just helping by explaining what it is. I have never heard of that before. So I looked it up.

        Like

        Reply

        1. Never heard of it, and it sounds like another dumb phrase someone in Hollywood made up for a movie and everyone picked up on.

          But that is not what I am. I explained my question and that has no bearing on it. Don’t resort to name-calling, please. It is unbecoming.

          Like

          Reply

          1. Funny, Glenn. I seem to remember a time when name calling came very easy to you.

            But nevertheless. You seem to think that asking a woman you don’t know about her reproductive choices is somehow your business. I also note the ease with which you shared your sister’s personal info. If that does not reveal an overly inquisitive, prying nature (the definition of a nosy parker) I don’t know what is.

            Like

  16. McSpin, I have never been into name-calling, except perhaps for calling someone a liberal, or homosexualist. I don’t use name-calling to stifle discussion, etc.

    I have never, ever asked a woman about her “reproductive choices.” What do I care about whether a woman chooses to have a baby, or what sort of birth control she uses, etc. But, abortion is NOT about “reproductive choice” the choice was made when one has sex which led to the baby being produced. I asked about your choice to abort that which was already produced. And you keep avoiding the reason I asked. You claimed I could not talk about the issue if I never faced pregnancy, and my question about whether you had an abortion was to point out with your logic that unless you had one you could not talk about it. But the whole point of the question wasn’t to find out whether you had one – I could care less. The point was to demonstrate your poor logic of saying one could not discuss a subject if they hadn’t experienced it.

    As for my sister, she tells about her abortion as part of her testimony as to the life she lived before coming to Christ. I was unaware she had had one and never asked. I just knew she had not led a very moral life. So how does my sharing what my sister shares as part of a testimony demonstrate that I am overly inquisitive or prying?

    Again, you just make that accusation to deflect the debate.

    Like

    Reply

  17. Glenn, ewww. Keep your weird, voyeuristic, overly personal storyspinning to subjects you actually have some personal knowledge about. Like bagpipes.

    As for me, I’m off limits. Hands off! Off! Off!

    Like

    Reply

    1. McSpin,

      You are making false accusations against me. You are even suggesting that I have been personal about you, when you were given full explanation as to my ONE question to you which I didn’t even want an answer for – it was to point you to your poor logic. Now quit making slanderous insinuations.

      Like

      Reply

  18. Well GLenn, my logic isn’t poor if you actually go back and examine what I actually wrote (“Until you are the one who is faced with carrying a child, you really can’t simply project your feelings into the situation”) vs. your somewhat twisted translation (“until YOU are the one who killed a child you can’t project your feelings into the situation!”)

    Those are two wholly different propositions. One is about being faced with carrying a child. The other is about abortion. And it’s fine for you to want to argue your version, but don’t make me the author of it. On that basis, you took off on a tangent, questioning me in an invasive manner and personal manner in order to prove some fallacious disconnect, presumed an answer, offered phony condolences and then spun your story further (“I asked about your choice to abort that which was already produced”).

    And you talk about my logic. You got off easy being called a nosy parker, Glenn. I know many people who would not have been as gentle.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Your poor logic is the claim that one cannot speak to a situation unless they are faced by it. I have never been faced by the need of an amputation, but that doesn’t mean I can’t speak about it.

      My paraphrase did not alter the gist of the argument. My point was that by your poor logic you could not speak about abortion if you never had one.

      By your logic even lawmakers can’t speak to abortion because they didn’t have one, even lawmakers can’t speak about murder if they’ve never committed murder. Do you get the point now?

      And there was nothing I said that warranted your name-calling.

      Like

      Reply

Leave a reply to Wintery Knight Cancel reply